I'm profiling a Python function `foo()` that takes a single argument,
but that argument makes a huge difference in what the function
actually does.
Currently I'm using `cProfile`, which records every call to `foo()` as
if it was the same, preventing me from figuring out what's going on.
Is there
Sayth Renshaw schreef op 11/09/2019 om 12:11:
I want to allow as many lists as needed to be passed into a function.
But how can I determine how many lists have been passed in?
I expected this to return 3 but it only returned 1.
matrix1 = [[1, -2], [-3, 4],]
matrix2 = [[2, -1], [0, -1]]
matrix3
> I expected this to return 3 but it only returned 1.
>
> matrix1 = [[1, -2], [-3, 4],]
> matrix2 = [[2, -1], [0, -1]]
> matrix3 = [[2, -1], [0, -1]]
>
> def add(*matrix):
> print(len(locals()))
>
> print(add(matrix1, matrix2))
In this case, locals will be a dictionary with exactly one key.
Le 11/09/2019 à 12:11, Sayth Renshaw a écrit :
Hi
I want to allow as many lists as needed to be passed into a function.
But how can I determine how many lists have been passed in?
I expected this to return 3 but it only returned 1.
matrix1 = [[1, -2], [-3, 4],]
matrix2 = [[2, -1], [0, -1]]
mat
On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 20:25:32 UTC+10, Sayth Renshaw wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 20:11:21 UTC+10, Sayth Renshaw wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I want to allow as many lists as needed to be passed into a function.
> > But how can I determine how many lists have been passed in?
> >
On Wednesday, 11 September 2019 20:11:21 UTC+10, Sayth Renshaw wrote:
> Hi
>
> I want to allow as many lists as needed to be passed into a function.
> But how can I determine how many lists have been passed in?
>
> I expected this to return 3 but it only returned 1.
>
> matrix1 = [[1, -2], [-3,
Hi
I want to allow as many lists as needed to be passed into a function.
But how can I determine how many lists have been passed in?
I expected this to return 3 but it only returned 1.
matrix1 = [[1, -2], [-3, 4],]
matrix2 = [[2, -1], [0, -1]]
matrix3 = [[2, -1], [0, -1]]
# print(add(matrix1, ma
On 10/29/2014 4:56 AM, ast wrote:
Consider the following to_bytes method from integer class:
int.to_bytes(length, byteorder, *, signed=False)
What doest the '*' in the arguments list means ?
If you go to the online doc index page for Symbols,
https://docs.python.org/3/genindex-Symbols.html
the
"Peter Otten" <__pete...@web.de> a écrit dans le message de
news:mailman.15291.1414574006.18130.python-l...@python.org...
A bare * indicates that the arguments that follow it are keyword-only:
ok, thx
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
ast wrote:
> Consider the following to_bytes method from integer class:
>
> int.to_bytes(length, byteorder, *, signed=False)
>
> What doest the '*' in the arguments list means ?
A bare * indicates that the arguments that follow it are keyword-only:
>>> def f(a, b=2, *, c=3):
... print("a =
Hi
Consider the following to_bytes method from integer class:
int.to_bytes(length, byteorder, *, signed=False)
What doest the '*' in the arguments list means ?
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
out_dict.update(locals()[keywords])
... return out_dict
...
>>> func(1,2, gah=123)
{'a': 1, 'c': 3, 'b': 2, 'gah': 123}
>>>
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Wolfgang Maier
wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> what is the recommended way
Hi everybody,
what is the recommended way of stuffing *all* function arguments (not just
the ones passed by **kwargs) into a common dictionary?
The following sort of works when used as the first block in a function:
try:
kwargs.update(locals())
except NameError:
kwargs = locals().copy
Le 12/12/2010 23:41, Peter Otten a écrit :
Pascal Chambon wrote:
I've encountered several times, when dealing with adaptation of function
signatures, the need for explicitly resolving complex argument sets into
a simple variable mapping. Explanations.
Consider that function:
def foo(a1,
Pascal Chambon wrote:
> I've encountered several times, when dealing with adaptation of function
> signatures, the need for explicitly resolving complex argument sets into
> a simple variable mapping. Explanations.
>
>
> Consider that function:
>
> def foo(a1, a2, *args, **kwargs):
> pass
Hello
I've encountered several times, when dealing with adaptation of function
signatures, the need for explicitly resolving complex argument sets into
a simple variable mapping. Explanations.
Consider that function:
def foo(a1, a2, *args, **kwargs):
pass
calling foo(1, a2=2, a3=3)
wi
Well I hate it when this happens. I ask a question, and literally 2
seconds later I bump into the answer.
This explains it a bit:
http://docs.python.org/library/stdtypes.html#bit-string-operations-on-integer-types
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
There is this peace of code in a 3rd party module:
MidiIn.SetFilter(pypm.FILT_ACTIVE | pypm.FILT_CLOCK |
pypm.FILT_PITCHBEND |
pypm.FILT_NOTE)
What are the vertical lines in a function call such as this? This
actually calls a function from a Pyrex module that was compiled int
John O'Hagan wrote:
Thanks, sockets are the way to go for this and surprisingly easy to use once
you get your head around them. I tried Rhodri's suggested approach but for now
I used the original terminal for both starting the program and entering new
options (still via raw_input) and a new t
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Rhodri James wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:18:25 +0100, John O'Hagan
>
> wrote:
> > Now I can change the output of the "work" function while it's running via
> > raw_input(). However it's very crude, not least because the terminal
> > echo of
> > the new options is interspe
On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 14:18:25 +0100, John O'Hagan
wrote:
Now I can change the output of the "work" function while it's running via
raw_input(). However it's very crude, not least because the terminal
echo of
the new options is interspersed with the output of the program.
In future I hope t
I'm writing a (music-generating) program incorporating a generator function
which takes dictionaries as its arguments. I want to be able to change the
values of the arguments while the program is running. I have it working as in
this toy example (python 2.5):
from sys import argv
from threadin
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 2:29 AM, horos11 wrote:
> All,
>
> Another one, this time a bit shorter.
>
> It looks like defaults for arguments are only bound once, and every
> subsequent call reuses the first reference created. Hence the
> following will print '[10,2]' instead of the expected '[1,2]'.
>
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:29 PM, horos11 wrote:
> All,
>
> Another one, this time a bit shorter.
>
> It looks like defaults for arguments are only bound once, and every
> subsequent call reuses the first reference created. Hence the
> following will print '[10,2]' instead of the expected '[1,2]'.
All,
Another one, this time a bit shorter.
It looks like defaults for arguments are only bound once, and every
subsequent call reuses the first reference created. Hence the
following will print '[10,2]' instead of the expected '[1,2]'.
Now my question - exactly why is 'default_me()' only called
On Jan 26, 10:39 am, Chris Rebert wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:34 AM, brasse wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 10:11 am, Chris Rebert wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:03 AM, brasse wrote:
> >> > Hello!
>
> >> > Is there any way that I can get at all the arguments passed to a
> >> > function as a
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:34 AM, brasse wrote:
> On Jan 26, 10:11 am, Chris Rebert wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:03 AM, brasse wrote:
>> > Hello!
>>
>> > Is there any way that I can get at all the arguments passed to a
>> > function as a map without using keyword arguments?
>>
>> > def foo
On Jan 26, 10:11 am, Chris Rebert wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:03 AM, brasse wrote:
> > Hello!
>
> > Is there any way that I can get at all the arguments passed to a
> > function as a map without using keyword arguments?
>
> > def foo(a, b, c):
> > # Can I access all the arguments in a c
brasse schrieb:
Hello!
Is there any way that I can get at all the arguments passed to a
function as a map without using keyword arguments?
def foo(a, b, c):
# Can I access all the arguments in a collection somewhere?
I'm mainly curious since I have stumbled on to some cases where it
might
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 1:03 AM, brasse wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Is there any way that I can get at all the arguments passed to a
> function as a map without using keyword arguments?
>
> def foo(a, b, c):
># Can I access all the arguments in a collection somewhere?
You can use positional arguments
brasse wrote:
Is there any way that I can get at all the arguments passed to a
function as a map without using keyword arguments?
def foo(a, b, c):
# Can I access all the arguments in a collection somewhere?
I'm mainly curious since I have stumbled on to some cases where it
might have been
Hello!
Is there any way that I can get at all the arguments passed to a
function as a map without using keyword arguments?
def foo(a, b, c):
# Can I access all the arguments in a collection somewhere?
I'm mainly curious since I have stumbled on to some cases where it
might have been nice to
thebjorn a écrit :
> On Nov 12, 1:05 am, "Anand Patil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I have two questions about a class, which we'll call MyWrapperClass,
>> in a package to which I'm contributing.
>>
>> 1) MyWrapperClass wraps functions. Each instance has an attribute
>> called 'val
On Nov 12, 1:05 am, "Anand Patil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have two questions about a class, which we'll call MyWrapperClass,
> in a package to which I'm contributing.
>
> 1) MyWrapperClass wraps functions. Each instance has an attribute
> called 'value' and a method called 'eval'
Hi all,
I have two questions about a class, which we'll call MyWrapperClass,
in a package to which I'm contributing.
1) MyWrapperClass wraps functions. Each instance has an attribute
called 'value' and a method called 'eval', which calls the wrapped
function. An instance D that depends on instan
pierre-yves guido wrote:
> hello (I hope my english is not so bad),
>
Your English is quite good. In future, though, please try to make your
subject line say a bit more about the problem - we *all* need help!
> I'm doing a training course and I'm a newbie in Python. My problem :
> I have a form,
Mike Meyer wrote:
> Your description of "passes references by value" is a description of
> call by reference. C passes all arguments by value, to pass a
> reference, the C programmer creates the reference to the value "by
> hand", then dereferences it by hand at the other end. So C's
> "call-by-re
Kent Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>> "ex_ottoyuhr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>I'm trying to create a function that can take arguments, say, foo and
>>>bar, and modify the original copies of foo and bar as well as its local
>>>versions -- the equivalent of C++ funct
Mike Meyer wrote:
> "ex_ottoyuhr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>I'm trying to create a function that can take arguments, say, foo and
>>bar, and modify the original copies of foo and bar as well as its local
>>versions -- the equivalent of C++ funct(&foo, &bar).
>
>
> C++'s '&' causes an argum
ex_ottoyuhr wrote:
> I'm trying to create a function that can take arguments, say, foo and
> bar, and modify the original copies of foo and bar as well as its local
> versions -- the equivalent of C++ funct(&foo, &bar).
This is already what you have. In Python, all you have are references to
objec
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> Except "trick" is a poor word choice. Nobody is playing a trick on
>> them - they just don't understand what is going on.
> oops, never thought about the negative meaning of it, it is just meant
> as "not behave as expected", what would be the word you use then ?
Surp
Mike Meyer wrote:
> Except "trick" is a poor word choice. Nobody is playing a trick on
> them - they just don't understand what is going on.
>
oops, never thought about the negative meaning of it, it is just meant
as "not behave as expected", what would be the word you use then ?
--
http://mail.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> > Mike Meyer wrote:
>> >> "ex_ottoyuhr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> > I'm trying to create a function that can take arguments, say, foo and
>> >> > bar, and modify the original copies of foo and bar as well as its l
Mike Meyer wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > Mike Meyer wrote:
> >> "ex_ottoyuhr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > I'm trying to create a function that can take arguments, say, foo and
> >> > bar, and modify the original copies of foo and bar as well as its local
> >> > versions -- the equi
>
> And, indeed, would that approach work? Would declaring:
>
> class FooWrapper :
> __init__(fooToLoad) :
> self.foo = fooToLoad
>
> mean that I could now declare a FooWrapper holding a foo, pass the
> FooWrapper to a function, and have the function conclude with the foo
> within the
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Many people from C/C++ background would be tricked for this situation.
>
> That's because they don't understand binding. Any language that has
> bindings instead of has assignments will "trick" them this way.
...Java being probably the most popular examp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>> "ex_ottoyuhr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > I'm trying to create a function that can take arguments, say, foo and
>> > bar, and modify the original copies of foo and bar as well as its local
>> > versions -- the equivalent of C++ funct(&foo, &bar)
ex_ottoyuhr wrote:
> I'm trying to create a function that can take arguments, say, foo and
> bar, and modify the original copies of foo and bar as well as its local
> versions -- the equivalent of C++ funct(&foo, &bar).
>
> I've looked around on this newsgroup and elsewhere, and I gather that
> th
"ex_ottoyuhr" wrote:
> I've looked around on this newsgroup and elsewhere, and I gather that
> this is a very common concern in Python, but one which is ordinarily
> answered with "No, you can't. Neat, huh?" A few websites, newsgroup
> posts, etc. have recommended that one ask for a more "Pythonic
Mike Meyer wrote:
> "ex_ottoyuhr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I'm trying to create a function that can take arguments, say, foo and
> > bar, and modify the original copies of foo and bar as well as its local
> > versions -- the equivalent of C++ funct(&foo, &bar).
>
> C++'s '&' causes an argum
"ex_ottoyuhr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'm trying to create a function that can take arguments, say, foo and
> bar, and modify the original copies of foo and bar as well as its local
> versions -- the equivalent of C++ funct(&foo, &bar).
>
> I've looked around
"ex_ottoyuhr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm trying to create a function that can take arguments, say, foo and
> bar, and modify the original copies of foo and bar as well as its local
> versions -- the equivalent of C++ funct(&foo, &bar).
C++'s '&' causes an argument to be passed by reference.
(Re. mutability question:)
Update, never mind. I found that the FooWrapper solution isn't so bad
after all -- and even better is putting the variable in question in a
different module entirely.
However, anyone who wants to answer the question is still welcome to.
Sorry to be a bother, and to have
I'm trying to create a function that can take arguments, say, foo and
bar, and modify the original copies of foo and bar as well as its local
versions -- the equivalent of C++ funct(&foo, &bar).
I've looked around on this newsgroup and elsewhere, and I gather that
this is a very common concern in
On 1 Nov 2005 17:17:00 -0800, "Noah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have a dictionary that I would like to expand to satisfy a
>function's agument list. I can used the ** syntax to pass a dictionary,
>but
>this only works if each key in the dictionary matches an argument.
>I cannot pass a dictionar
Noah wrote:
> Bruno Desthuilliers a écrit :
>
>>Noah a écrit :
>>If you have control over the API functions declarations, makes them so:
>>def my_api_func(arg1='', arg2='whatever', **kwargs):
>> code_here
>
>
> Unfortunately I cannot change the API functions.
> I should have mentioned that.
Y
Bruno Desthuilliers a écrit :
> Noah a écrit :
> If you have control over the API functions declarations, makes them so:
> def my_api_func(arg1='', arg2='whatever', **kwargs):
>code_here
Unfortunately I cannot change the API functions.
I should have mentioned that.
Yours,
Noah
--
http://ma
Noah a écrit :
> I have a dictionary that I would like to expand to satisfy a
> function's agument list. I can used the ** syntax to pass a dictionary,
> but
> this only works if each key in the dictionary matches an argument.
> I cannot pass a dictionary that has more keys than the function has
>
I have a dictionary that I would like to expand to satisfy a
function's agument list. I can used the ** syntax to pass a dictionary,
but
this only works if each key in the dictionary matches an argument.
I cannot pass a dictionary that has more keys than the function has
arguments.
# Example 1 - T
That works perfectly - Thanks! I'm always getting tripped up by the
mutability of lists, I should really learn to look out for it more...
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm having some trouble with a function I've written in Python:
> def myFunction(l1,l2,result=[]):
[snipped rest of function and explanation of what it does]
> Does anyone know what is going on here? Is there an easy solution?
It shined out like a supernova. It has to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi
hi
> I'm having some trouble with a function I've written in Python:
>
> def myFunction(l1,l2,result=[]):
> index=0
> for i in l1:
> result.append([])
> if type(i)==list:
> myFunction(i,l2,result[index])
> else:
>
Hi
I'm having some trouble with a function I've written in Python:
def myFunction(l1,l2,result=[]):
index=0
for i in l1:
result.append([])
if type(i)==list:
myFunction(i,l2,result[index])
else:
for j in l2:
result[index].appe
I had an idea for passing functions as arguments:
Allow a block syntax (like with class definition)
for keyword arguments, attached to a statement
that includes a function call but doesn't need
the block for something else (like loops and ifs).
Apologies for the contrived examples.
squares = map
lotmr wrote:
I have a windows launch bar application that sits in the system tray.
What I want to do is when i click on a button in the launch menu, it
calls the event which then calls 'OnLaunch('path')' this does not seem
possible. When I change 'OnLaunch(self, event)' to 'OnLaunch(self,
event, pa
I have a windows launch bar application that sits in the system tray.
What I want to do is when i click on a button in the launch menu, it
calls the event which then calls 'OnLaunch('path')' this does not seem
possible. When I change 'OnLaunch(self, event)' to 'OnLaunch(self,
event, path)' it says
Ups, that was meant to go to the pykde list.
Sorry,
Frans
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Frans Englich wrote:
> Apparently, cleanPath /requires/ a boolean argument, but the C++
> function definition says:
>
> void cleanPath(bool cleanDirSeparator = true);
Most likely that cleanPath's default parameter hasn't been declared to
*Python*. If so, I expect this is a KURL bug. Raise a bu
Hello,
I've stumbled over a behavior related to default function arguments which
appears to be a bug, from what I can tell. See this snippet:
>>> from kdecore import KURL
>>> u = KURL( "http://www.example.org/test/../"; )
>>> u.cleanPath()
Traceback
Mark McEahern wrote:
Dan Eloff wrote:
How can you determine that func2 will only accept
bar and zoo, but not foo and call the function with
bar as an argument?
Let Python answer the question for you:
...
Please be aware the "normal" way to do this is go ahead and call
the function. Many "functio
Python 2.4 (#60, Nov 30 2004, 11:49:19) [MSC v.1310 32 bit (Intel)] on win32
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
Running startup script
Py> import inspect
Py> help(inspect.getargspec)
Help on function getargspec in module inspect:
getargspec(func)
Get the name
Awesome, wrapping that into a function:
def getargs(func):
numArgs = func.func_code.co_argcount
names = func.func_code.co_varnames
return names[:numArgs]
short, concise, and it works :)
variables declared inside the function body are also in co_varnames
but after the arguments only it s
Dan Eloff wrote:
How can you determine that func2 will only accept
bar and zoo, but not foo and call the function with
bar as an argument?
Let Python answer the question for you:
>>> def func2(bar='a', zoo='b'):
... pass
...
>>> for name in dir(func2):
... print '%s: %s' % (name, getattr(func2, na
You can take a dictionary of key/value pairs and pass it to a function as
keyword arguments:
def func(foo,bar):
print foo, bar
args = {'foo':1, 'bar':2}
func(**args)
will print "1 2"
But what if you try passing those arguments to a function
def func2(bar,zoo=''):
print bar, zoo
H
Thanks for the pointers to traits, BasicProperty, and harold
fellermann's sample code...
---
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and solely
for the intended addressee(s). Unauthorised reproduction, disclosur
Bengt Richter wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:23:58 -0500, "Mike C. Fletcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:24:12 -, "Mark English" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
Does the BasicProperty base class effectively register itself as an observer
of subclass properties and
Diez B. Roggisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick Coghlan wrote:
> >
> > If this only has to work for classes created for the purpose (rather than
> > for an arbitrary class):
>
> Certainly a step into the direction I meant - but still missing type
> declarations. And that's what at least I'd l
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 20:23:58 -0500, "Mike C. Fletcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:24:12 -, "Mark English" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I'd like to write a Tkinter app which, given a class, pops up a
>>>window(s) with fields for each "attribute" of that c
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:24:12 -, "Mark English" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd like to write a Tkinter app which, given a class, pops up a
window(s) with fields for each "attribute" of that class. The user could
enter values for the attributes and on closing the window would be
returned an i
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:24:12 -, "Mark English" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'd like to write a Tkinter app which, given a class, pops up a
>window(s) with fields for each "attribute" of that class. The user could
>enter values for the attributes and on closing the window would be
>returned an
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
> According to this
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-pyint.html
>
> not really - and there are no special moduls neccessary, as
> everything is at your hands using __dict__ and so on.
Thanks for the link. I'd read that article but found it was too
introd
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
Nick Coghlan wrote:
If this only has to work for classes created for the purpose (rather than
for an arbitrary class):
Certainly a step into the direction I meant - but still missing type
declarations. And that's what at least I'd like to see - as otherwise you
don't know w
> The classes I'm dealing with do have attributes since they're
> C-Extension types with attributes provided in the "tp_getset" slot. So
> this is one case where I can query the class for attributes without
> having to create an instance. Thanks for making me think of that, since
> looking in the c
> From: "Mark English" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I'd like to write a Tkinter app which, given a class, pops up a
> window(s) with fields for each "attribute" of that class. The
> user could enter values for the attributes and on closing the
> window would be returned an instance of the class. The
Nick Coghlan wrote:
>
> If this only has to work for classes created for the purpose (rather than
> for an arbitrary class):
>
Certainly a step into the direction I meant - but still missing type
declarations. And that's what at least I'd like to see - as otherwise you
don't know what kind of ed
Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
Mark English wrote:
As youself already mentioned that maybe you have to impose certain
prerequisites, you maybe want to extend this to the point where for each
class you want to make dynamically instantiatable you need some
declaration. This of course depends on your desired
Mark English wrote:
> The only way I can imagine to do this is to create an instance of the
> class in question, and then start poking around in its attributes
> dictionary (initially just using dir). So firstly, if there is instead a
> way to do this without creating an instance I'd be interested
I'd like to write a Tkinter app which, given a class, pops up a
window(s) with fields for each "attribute" of that class. The user could
enter values for the attributes and on closing the window would be
returned an instance of the class. The actual application I'm interested
in writing would eithe
;
. ... print unpack(x)
. ...
. >>> f(C("created"))
. created
. f
. <__main__.C object at 0x01140790>
. >>> f(C("created") for _ in [1])
. f
. created
. <__main__.C object at 0x0114F810>
Of course, the syntax here isn
89 matches
Mail list logo
